11/1/2010 - November 2010 SLI Educational Update - The Alabama Harassment Prevention Act - The Gay Agenda
AN EDUCATIONAL UPDATE FROM
THE SOUTHEAST LAW INSTITUTE™, INC.
To: SLI Supporters
Date: November 2010
From: A. Eric Johnston
Re: The Alabama Harassment Prevention Act – The Gay Agenda
In 2009 the Alabama Legislature passed the Student Harassment Prevention Act, Section 16-28B-1, 1975 Code of Alabama (“Act”). The stated purpose of the Act was to provide for the adoption of policies in public school systems to prevent the harassment of students. It turns out, however, that the law is a vehicle for introducing the gay agenda into public schools.
The essence of the Act is that harassment, i.e., bullying, is a continuous pattern of intentional behavior motivated by the characteristics of a student. The Act required local school boards to develop a policy on or before July 1, 2010 based on a model policy provided by the Alabama State Department of Education (“ALSDE”), listing characteristics which would be the cause for harassment. The ALSDE prepared a model policy which included the following characteristics: race, sex, religion, national origin and disability. Local school boards must include those characteristics, but could add others.
On September 28, 2009, Alabama State Board of Education member Betty Peters and I met with representatives of the ALSDE. We urged the ALSDE to avoid listing characteristics since any such list would be non-exhaustive and give rise to problematic characteristic designations. We recommended the school board utilize the Ohio model policy which defines harassment, intimidation or bullying as the act of any student toward another that causes mental or physical pain. We explained that while the ALSDE’s model policy focused on immutable characteristics, there could be harassment for myriad other reasons. Therefore, why limit the Act to “stated” characteristics? This would also give an opportunity for the subtle secret agenda for the Act, i.e, to introduce into Alabama public schools the recognition of “sexual orientation?” ALSDE officials were incredulous and assured us that the purpose of the law would not be hijacked.
Since then, Alabama local boards have passed anti-harassment policies, with some including sexual orientation. We have seen continuous news articles, both in Alabama and other states, about the plight of gays in public schools. The most recent and significant event was the misguided intervention of the President of the United States and the federal government. The President urged gay students to take heart and not to worry. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights sent a letter on October 26, 2010 to state and local school boards. It explained that various federal laws impose obligations on schools to stop harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students because to permit this would be a federal offense. Though acknowledging federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, the letter said, “It can be sex discrimination if students are harassed either for exhibiting what is perceived as a stereotypical characteristic for their sex, or for failing to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.”
Federal law includes as a ground for discrimination “sex” or “gender,” but not “sexual orientation.” The Department has improperly interpreted the law to say that discrimination because of your sex also includes your sexual orientation. That is clearly not what was intended by Congress and is an egregious, unlawful, political and punitive overreaching by a misdirected and immoral federal administration.
Bullying is an old and still increasing problem. No doubt, the issue should and must be addressed. Bullying should not be permitted for any reason, including the perceived or actual sexual orientation of a student. However, this Act should not be used to further the gay agenda, but it is. Although it was well camouflaged and kept far below the surface, that was the subversive goal of the homosexual lobby.
There are several ways the problems can be addressed. Local school boards can turn to uniform enforcement of any type of harassment or bullying activity without designating specific characteristics or including sexual orientation. As we have seen, some school boards will not do that. The better way is to amend the Act using the Ohio model. This will require legislative action, which would depend on the will of the Alabama Legislature. Finally, local school boards should resist overreaching federal involvement.
In the meantime, it is appropriate for public school systems under the Act to prohibit and punish all types of harassment or bullying, regardless of the motivation. It should be treated as a serious problem, and not diminished by secret and subversive perverted interests.
<-- Go Back